E 449 
.fl425 
Copy 1 



S 



' \Copy 1 J*"0- *S- 



IS SLAA^ERY SANCTIONED 
BY THE \\\]M,W\ 



A PREMIUM TRACT. 



BY" ISAAC ALLEN, 

OBEBLIN. OHIO. r— 



v^ 



"I) 



PUBLISHED BY THE 
AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 

28 CORN HILL. BOSTON. 



The following Tract received the premium of One Hundred Dollars, 
offered by the " Church Anti-Slaver)' Society," for the best Tract on the 
teachings of the Bible respecting Slavery. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by 

THE AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY. 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Distriit of Massachusetts. 



JlS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY 

^ THE BIBLE? 

<^* 

If there is one subject which, above all others, may 
be regarded as of national interest at the present time, 
it is the subject of Slavery. Wherever we go, north 
or south, east or west, at the fireside, in the factory, the 
rail-car or the steamboat, in the state legislatures or the 
national Congress, this " ghost that will not down " ob- 
trudes itself. The strife has involved press, pulpit, and 
forum alike, and spite of all compromises by political 
parties, and the desperate attempts at non-committal by 
religious bodies, it only grows wider and deeper. 

But the distinctive feature of this, as compared with 
other questions of national import, is, that here both 
parties di'aw their principal arguments from the Bible as a 
common armory of weapons for attack and defense. On 
the one side, it is claimed that slavery, as it exists in the 
United States, is not a moral evil ; that it is an innocent 
and lawful relation, as much as that of parent and child, 
husband and wife, or any other in society ; that the right 
to buy, sell, and hold men for purposes of gain, was given by 
express permission of God, and sanctioned by Christ and 
his apostles ; that this right is founded on the golden 
rule; and says Dr. Shannon of Bacon College, Ky., "I 
hardly know which is most unaccountable, the profound 
ignorance of the Bible, or the sublimity of cool impu- 
dence and infidelity manifested by those who profess to 
be Christians, and yet dare affirm that the Book of God 
gives no sanction to slavcholding." All these affirma- 
tions are fairly summed up thus : "As slavery was 
practiced by the patriarchs, received sanction and legal- 
ity from God in the Mosaic law, and was not denounced 
by Christ and his apostles, it must have been right. If 
right then, it is so still ; therefore Southern slavery is 
right." 

On the other hand, it is contended that chattel slavery 

(1) 



2 IS :?LAYE11Y SANCTI02>^ED BY THi: BIBLE T 

is nowhere warranted or sanctioned by the Bible, but is 
totally opposed both to its spirit and teachings. 

It will be the object of the present discussion to deter- 
mine which of these opinions is correct. 

SLAVERY DEFINED. 

What, then, is chattel slavery as understood in Amer- 
ican law ? 

1 . It is not the relation of wife or child. In one sense 
a man may be said to "possess" these ; but he can not 
buy or sell them. These are natural relations ; and he 
who violates them for the sake of gain is branded by all 
as barbarous and criminal. 

2. Not the relation of apprentice or minor. This is tem- 
porary, having for its primary object, not the good of the 
master or guardian, but that of the apprentice or minor, his 
education and preparation for acting his part as a free 
and independent member of society ; but chattelism is 
life bondage, for the sole good of the master. 

3. Not the relation of service by contract. Here a 
bond or agreement is implied, and therefore reciprocal 
rights, and the mutual power of dissolution on failure of 
either in the terms of mutual agreement ; but chattelism 
ignores and denies the ability of the slave to make a contract. 

4. Not serfdom or villeinage. The serf or villein was 
attached to the glebe or soil, and could not be severed 
from it, deprived of his family, or sold to another as a 
chattel ; being retained as part of the indivisible feudal 
community. But the chattel slave is a " thing" incapa- 
ble of family relations, and may be sold when, where, or 
how the master pleases. 

Chattelism is none of these relations ; its principle is 
" property in man." Its definition is thus given in the 
law of Louisiana, (Civil Code, art. 35 :) " A slave is one 
who is in the power of his master, to whom he belongs. 
The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his in- 
dustry, his labor ; he can do nothing, possess nothing, 
acquire nothing, but what must belong to his master." 

South Carolina says, (Prince's Digest, 446,) " Slaves 
shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in 
law, to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners 
and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and 



IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE : 3 

assigns, to all intents, purposes, and constructions Avhat- 
soevcr." 

Judge Ruffin, giving the opinion of the Supreme Court 
of North Carolina, (case of State i\ Mann,) says a slave 
is " one doomed in his own person and his posftrity to 
live without knowledge, and without the capacity to make 
any thing his own, and to toil that another may reap the 
fruits." 

We now come to the point at issuo : Does the Bible 
sanction this system ? 

OLD TESTAMENT. 
1. Ilcbreic Terms. 

The Hebrew terms used in reference to this subject are 
"i?3?. auvadh, "to serve;" the noun, "^^> evcdh, " servant" 
or " bondman," one contracting service for a term of years ; 
T^pr* saukir, a " hired servant " daily or weekly ; ""^i^' 
aumau, and nH^r* shiphechau, " maid-servant " or "hand- 
maid ; " but there is no term in Hebrew synonymous with 
our word slave, for all the terms applied to servants are, 
as we shall show, equally applicable and applied to free 
persons. 

The verb ^5^» auvadh, according to Gesenius, signifies 
primarily, to labor ; then, to labor for one's self, for hire, 
or compulsory labor as a captive or prisoner of war. 
Gen. 2:5, 15 ; 3 : 23 ; 29 : 15. Ex. 20 : 9 ; 21 : 2. 
Next, national servitude as tributary to others ; as Sodom 
and the cities of the plain to Chedorlaomer, Gen. 14:4; 
Esau to Jacob, Gen. 25 : 23 ; the Israelites in Canaan 
to surrounding nations, Moabitcs, Philistines, and others, 
Judg. 3:8; Jcr. 27: 7, 9. Next, national and personal 
servitude or serfdom, as of the Israelites in Egypt. Lastly, 
the service of God or idols, Judg. 3 : 7, &c. From these and 
similar passages Ave see that neither the generic nor spe- 
cific meaning of the term, taken in its connections, implies 
chattel slavery, but labor, voluntary, hired, or compul- 
sory, as of tributary nations or prisoners of war, whose 
claim to regain, if possible, their freedom and rights, is 
ever admitted and acted on ; showing that freedom is the 
normal state of man, subjection and compulsory servitude 
the abnormal and unnatural. 



^ IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 

But it is objected that, though the proper meaning of 
the verb " to serve" does not imply chattel slavery, it is 
certain that the derived noun ";n;;» evedh, translated " ser- 
vant " and " bondman " in our version, is frequently used 
to designate involuntary servitude, the service of one 
" bought with money," and therefore a chattel slave. 
We reply. By far the most frequent use of this term, 
as is well known, represents either the common defer- 
ential mode of address of inferiors to superiors, or equals 
to equals, used then and to-day in the East, or the 
political subordination of inferior to superior rank invari- 
ably existing in Eastern governments. Otherwise we have 
Jacob saying to Esau, " The children which God hath 
graciously given thy" slave; and Joseph's brethren saying 
to him, " Thou saidst to thy slaves, Bring him down to me." 
" When we came up to thy slave my father." Saul's offi- 
cers and soldiers are his slaves, David is Jonathan's, and 
vice versa ; Abigail, David's wife, is his slave ; his people, 
officers, and even embassadors are all his slaves ; all are slaves 
to each other, and none are masters, unless it be the king. 
How, then, can we properly define the meaning and 
status of the term *' servant" in any particular passage ? 
We answer, only by the context and the usage of the 
particular time and place, so far as known. 

2. The Curse of Canaan, 

We first meet with the term " servant " in the oft-disputed 
passage. Gen. 9 : 25-27 : " Cursed be Canaan ; a servant 
of servants shall he be unto his brethren. . . . Blessed 
be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his ser- 
vant." . . . Now, as we have no state of servitude in the 
context or the usage of the times with which to compare 
this, and as only Canaan and his descendants are included 
in the curse, we must look to their subsequent history for 
the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the kind of servitude 
there implied. 

We find the descendants of Canaan and their land de- 
fined in Gen. 10 : 15-20. They were not tlie Africans, 
as some ignorantly assert, but the Canaanites, who dwelt 
in Canaan, and wore there destroyed by the Israelites, or 
rendered tributaries, except the Gibeonites, who were 
doomed to be "■ hewers of wood and drawers of water," 



IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 5 

the serfs of the temple service. Josh. 9 : 23, 27. There 
is not one word of buying and selling individuals — no 
chattelism, or any sanction of it ; there is a performing of 
the service of the temple, or paying tribute, but never 
slaves or chattels. Canaan thus became the servant (not 
slave) of Shem ; and when afterward Israel was oppressed 
and rendered tributary to other nations, the Canaanites 
became thus not only " servants," but " servants of ser- 
vants." 

3. Patriarchal Senitude. 

The next example of the word " servant" brings us to 
that" epoch in relation to which the Harmony Presbytery 
of South Carolina says, " Slavery has existed from the 
days of those good old slaveholders Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, (who are now in the kingdom of heaven,) to the 
time when the apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his 
master Philemon, and wrote a Christian and paternal let- 
ter to this slaveholder, which we find still stands in the 
canon of the Scriptures." 

The account we have of Abraham's servants is briefly 
as follows : " That he had men-servants and maid-servants, 
Gen. 12: 16; 14: 14; 17:2 7, (not slaves, for we have 
shown above by numerous passages that to give such a 
definition to the term " servant" is false and absurd, un- 
less sustained by the context or the usage of the times ;) 
that they numbered some two thousand persons, (reckon- 
ing by the number of fighting men among them, generally 
one in five of the population,) were trained and accus- 
tomed to arms. Gen. 14 : 14; could inherit property, 
Gen. 15: 3,4; in religious ordinances were perfectly 
equal with the master, Gen. 17 : 10-14 ; had entire con- 
trol not only over the property, but also the heirs of the 
household, Gen. 24 : 2-10; lastly, they were invariably 
considered as men, not slaves or chattels. Gen. 24 : 
30, 32. " And the man (servant of Abraham) came into 
the house, and he ungirded his camels, and gave straw 
and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet 
and the men's feet that were with him." 

" But," it is objected, " some of these servants were 
' bought with money ; ' therefore they must have been 
possessed as ' chattel slaves.' " This conclusion depends 
1* 



6 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE? 

partly on the meaning of the Hebrew verb nff » kaunau, 
" to buy ; " and asserts that whenever this term is ap- 
plied to persons, it implies the relation of chattel slavery. 
The primary definition of the verb, given by Gesenius, is, 
to erect; then, 1. To found or create; 2. To get, gain, 
obtain, acquire, possess ; 3. To get by purchase, to buy. 

Let us see the meaning of this term, applied to per- 
sons in other ^Dassages. In Gen. 31 : 15, Rachel and 
Leah say of their father, " He hath sold us, and quite 
devoured also our money," referring to Jacob's long 
service for them; \vere they chattels? Gen. 47:23, 
Joseph hQiight the Eg}TDtians ; were they chattels ? * Ex. 
21 : 2, "If thou huy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he 
serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for noth- 
ing ; " was he a chattel? Ruth 4: 10, "Ruth the 
Moabitess have I purchased this day to be my icife ; " 
was she a chattel ? These passages clearly show that the 
simple application of the term "bought with money" 
docs not imply property and possession as a chattel. 

The phrase " bought with money" relates, in the case 
of wives, to the dowry usual in Eastern countries ; in the 
case of servants, to the ransom paid for captives in war, 
and paid by the individual on adoption into the tribe ; or 
to an equivalent paid as hire of time and labor for a lim- 
ited period, either to parents for their children as appren- 
tices, &c., or to the individual himself, as Jacob to Laban. 
Gen. 31 : 41, "Thus have I been twenty years in thy 
house ; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, 
and six years for thy cattle, and thou hast changed my 
wages ten times." Thus Abraham could acquire a claim 
on the service of a man during life by purchase from him- 
self ; could acquire the allegiance of a man and his fam- 
ily, and all born in it, by contract, not to be broken but by 
mutual agreement ; and in a few years have a vast house- 
hold under his authority, "born in his house," and 
" bought with money," yet not one of them a slave. 

Another general proof already alluded to is, that the 
terms n;;2^'' "servant," and ^>;» naar, "young man," are 
applied synonymously and equally to servants and free 
persons. Gen. 14 : 24, Abraham calls his servants young 
men, and again in Gen. 17 : 23, 27. So in Job 1 : 15-19, 
the term ^J? is applied alike to Job's servants and sons. 



IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 7 

Also in Judg. 7: 10 ; 19 : 3, 11, 19 ; 1 Sam. 9 : 3, 5, 
10, 22, and numerous other places, these terms are applied 
indiscriminately to servants, showing that they were al- 
ways regarded as men, never as chattels. 

But we are not left to conjecture in regard to the status 
or condition of Abraham's servants ; we will bring proofs 
showing that it could not have been chattel slavery. 

Two of the fundamental characteristics of cliattclism are, 
The status of the mother decides that of the child, and The 
slave, being property, can not inliorit or possess property. 
Was this the condition of " servants" in patriarchal society? 
If so, then these characteristics brand them as chattels ; 
but on the contrary, if no record is found of their being 
sold, (the buying we have already reasonably accounted 
for ;) if the children of these servants were reckoned free, 
if they and their childi-en could inherit property, then 
even American slave law and custom declare them free 
persons, and not chattels personal. 

Take the case of Hagar. We read. Gen. 16: 1, she 
was an Egyptian " handmaid, maid-servant," perhaps one 
of those referred to in Gen. 12 : 16, Abraham, at Sarah's 
instigation, makes her his concubine. The usual bicker- 
ing of Eastern harems ensues. Hagar leaves the tribe, is 
sent back by the angel, Ishmacl is born, and this son of 
a slave (?) is regarded not only as free, but heir of the 
house of Abraham. Years pass, and the wild, reckless 
Ishmael is seen ridiculing Isaac, his puny brother and 
coheir. At the sight, all the mother and the aristocrat 
again rise up in Sarah, and she cries out to Abraham, 
" Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for he shall not 
be heir with my son, even Isaac ; " and Abraham, so far 
from regarding them as chattels personal, and selling them 
south, sends off the wild boy to be the wild, free Arab, 
" whose hand will be against every man, and every man's 
hand against his." 

Take the case of Bilhah and Zilpah, given by Laban 
(Gen. 29 : 24, 29,) as handmaids (.r>^iiO to his daughters 
Leah and Rachel. Gen. 30: 4-14. They become Ja- 
cob's concubines, and bear him four sons — Dan, Xaph- 
tali, Gad, and Ashcr. Here the case is plain ; the 
mothers are " servants," they have children, and these, 
instead of being (as in similar cases daily at the South) 



8 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 

"reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal,'* 
are recognized as free and equal with the other sons, 
Reuben, Judah, &c., and become, like them, heads of 
tribes in Israel. In these cases, — and they are all which 
relate to the point at issue, — either the status of these 
servants did or did not decide that of their children. If 
it did, then, by the laws of chattelism, the children being 
free prove the mother (though servant) to be free ; if it 
did not, then the mother was held only by feudal allegi- 
ance, while the children were always free. In either case 
the conditions of chattelism did not exist ; they were not 
slaves, but free persons in the same condition as members 
of wandering Arab and Tartar tribes to this day. 

Did the second fundamental condition of chattelism 
mentioned above exist ? The slave, being property, can 
not possess or inherit property. In Gen. 15: 3 we find 
Abraham complaining to the Lord, " Behold, to me thou 
hast given no seed, and lo, one horn in my house is my 
heir ! " The same term is used here as in speaking of 
Abraham's other servants ; and yet this " servant" is de- 
clared by Abraham his acknowledged heir. Here there is a 
manifest contradiction of the conditions of a chattel slave. 
They can not inherit property ; this man could ; therefore 
he was not a slave. It fs an entii-ely gratuitous assump- 
tion to assert that Abraham's dependents were slaves ; for 
similar cases occur daily in nomadic tribes, as formerly 
they did in Scottish clans. If the chief has no child 
capable of succeeding him in office, he chooses from his 
dependents some tried and trusty warrior, and adopts him 
as lieutenant or henchman, to succeed him as heir or 
chief. Just so Abraham, then nearly eiglity years old, 
despairing of a son to take his place as chief of the tribe, 
adopted some young warrior (perhaps a leader in the 
battle of Hobah) as his heir, with the proviso of resigning 
in favor of a son if any be born. But in the case of 
Jacob's four sons the conclusion is self-evident — chil- 
di-en of " servants " or " handmaids," yet recognized as 
free like the other sons, sharing the property of the father 
equally with them ; — the conditions of a state of chattel- 
ism did not exist. 

These things prove conclusively that the term *' ser- 
vant " never meant slave in patriaixhal families ; that the 



IS slatehy sanctioned by the eible r 9 

term " bought with money" referred only to feudal alle- 
giance or service for a time agreed on by both parties. 
These servants could possess and inherit property ; their 
children were free ; they were trained to the use of arms ; 
in religious matters master and servant were alike and 
equal ; and they were always considered and called 77zcn, 
never slaves or chattels, — all which are directly contrary 
to the principles and express enactments of American 
slave law, and are the charnctcristics of free persons even 
at the South. Add to this the significant fact that not 
one word is said in the patriarchal records of selling 
any of these servants, (the only act mentioned of selling 
a human being is that of Joseph by his brethren, so bit- 
terly reprobated and repented of by them soon after,) 
though frequently bought ; that no fugitive law existed, 
in fact could not exist in a wandering tribe, — and the 
natural conclusion is, that they were not slaves, but free 
men and women ; and therefore the records of patriarchal 
society conclusively deny the existence of chattel slaves 
or slavery as one of its institutions. 

Years pass, and we find the Israelites reduced to a 
servile condition as the serfs of the Egyptians. God, in 
his purposes, allowed them to remain thus for a time, and 
then, instead of sanctioning even this modified form of 
slavery, demanded their instant release ; and on refusal, 
with terrible judgments on their oppressors, he led forth 
that army of fugitive slaves, and (h-owned their pursuers 
in the Red Sea. 

4. Mosaic Laics. 

AVe come next to the sanction and authority of chattel 
slavery claimed to exist in the laws and economy of these 
people just escaped from bondage, and framed by him 
Avho had shown his displeasure against slavery by nearly 
destroying a nation of slaveholders for holding and catch- 
ing slaves. The arguments for this claim are — 1 . That 
the term "servant" or "bondman" used in the Mosaic 
law means chattel slavery ; 2. That in certain cases the 
Hebrews might hold their brethren as slaves for ever ; 
3. They might buy slaves from the heathen around, and 
hold them for ever. These positions, we admit, have some 
plausibility, and have doubtless had great weight in pro- 
ducing the opinion that chattelism is sanctioned by the 



10 IS SLATERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 

Bible. We propose to consider the condition of the 
classes of servants referred to in their order. 

1. Hebrew servants. These were of four kinds — ser- 
vants under contract or indenture for six years, probably 
from one sabbatic year to another : servants held till the 
year of jubilee, or " for ever : " chikken born in the 
house, or hired out by their parents : convicted thieves ; 
and afterward, though sanctioned by no law, debtors. 

In respect to the first of these classes, the law is found 
in Ex. 21: 2-6; Deut. 15: 12-18. "If thou buy a 
Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the 
seventh he shall go out free, for nothing." Here the 
term "buy" can only be applied to the service, sold by the 
servant for six years, (or perhaps to the sabbatic seventh 
year, as daily or weekly service ended with the Sabbath,) 
for it is applied to a state which no ingenuity whatever 
can construe as chattelism. 

The second class of Hebrew servants is mentioned 
Ex. 21 : 5, 6. "If the servant shall plainly say, I love 
my master, my wife, and my children ; I will not go out 
free ; then his master shall bring him to the judges : he 
shall also bring him to the door or to the door-post, and he 
shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve 
him for ever." Deut. 15 : 17, the same law adds, " And 
also to thy maid-servant shalt thou do likewise." But 
in Lev. 25 : 39, 40, 53, it is expressly enacted that one 
who served "longer than six years was not to be treated 
or considered as an 135, evedh, one contracting for a term 
of years, but as a ^'^^^, saukir, a hired servant, to be well 
treated and compensated for his services. " Thou shalt 
not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, but as a hired 
servant and as a sojourner he shall be with thee." The 
servant must plainly say, " I will not go out ; " it must be 
voluntary service ; but chattelism is involuntary, forced, 
and directly contrary to the case before us. " He shall 
serve hi?n for ever," not his sons after him, not giving the 
right of transfer or sale of service to a third person. 
" He shall serve," not his wife or chihh-en, but himself, 
till death, or his master's death, or the jubilee. This, 
then, was not chattelism, for it was voluntary, without 
purchase or sale, ending with the life of the servant, the 
mastery or the year of release — the jubilee. 



IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 11 

The third class of servants — children — appear during 
minority to have been, as now in all Eastern countries, 
entirely at the service or control of their parents, and 
might by them be hired out, Neh. 5 : 2-6, but, when 
of age, M-ere of course independent of parental acts and 
control. John 9: 21. That the oflPspring of servants in 
j^atriarchal times were free we have already proved ; that 
they were so among the Israelites is shown by the case 
of Abimelech, the son of a maid-servant, Judg. 9: 18, 
yet free as his brethren, and afterward king of Israel ; 
also of Sheshan. 1 Chr. 2 : 34, 35. Xo service, indeed, 
could be recognized or demanded, in Jewish law, of grown 
persons, except as the result of contract or crime. 

In respect to the fourth class, it is plain from the lan- 
guage used that only sufficient service could be required 
of them to cancel the obligation of restitution. Ex. 
22 : 3. " He should make full restitution ; if he have 
nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft ; " in case of 
debt. Matt. 18: 34, "till he should pay all that was 
due to him." 

2. Servants ohtained from the heathen. These were, 
first, captives. From the account of the first taking of 
captives by the Israelites, Num. 31 : 7-47, we learn, 
verse 7, that they marched into Midian, slew all the 
males, and seized the women, children, flocks, and herds. 
On their return ]Moses reprimanded them for disobeying 
God's command by preserving the grown women ; and 
thereupon they killed all but the virgins and children, 
reserving them for adoption into the families of the nation. 
In Deut. 20: 14 and 21: 10-14, we have these com- 
mands and regulations given, with an express prohibition 
of the enslavement of these captives, in case of repudia- 
tion by the captors. " It shall be, if thou have no 
delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she 
will ; but thou shalt not sell her at aU for money ; thou 
shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast 
humbled her." Now, all slaveholding tribes and nations, 
M'hen they seize captives for slaves, aim to obtain as many 
strong and vigorous men as possible ; must it not, there- 
fore, fairly be inferred from this regulation that God, by 
prohibiting instead of sanctioning the most productive 
mode of slave-making, — the enslavement of prisoners 



12 IS SLAYEKY SAXCTIOXED BY THE BIBLE ? 

of war, — did not intend, but positively prohibited, the 
Israelites from becoming a slaveholding nation ? 

Secondly, " bought with money." The law referring 
to these is Lev. 25: 44, 46. " IBoth thy bondmen and 
thy bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be of the 
heathen round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen 
and bondmaids. . . . And ye shall take them as an inher- 
itance for your children after you, to inherit them for a 
possession ; they shall be your bondmen for ever." As 
we have already stated, the Hebrews had but two terms 
for "servant" — the generic term eredh, one under 
contract for a term of years, and saukir, one hired by 
the day, Aveek, or year. Now, the term here translated 
" bondman " is the generic I^S", evedh, elsewhere trans- 
lated " servant," and therefore should have been thus 
translated here, unless a different rendering is required by 
the context. The more literal reading of the Hebrew is, 
" And thy men-servants and thy maid-servants which shall 
be to thee from the nations around you, of them shall 
ye procure the man-servant and maid-servant." "What, 
then, was the difference between the Hebrew and heathen 
evedh ? 

This. The Hebrew could only be an evedh, a ser- 
vant by contract, for six years, Ex. 21 : 2 — " Six years 
shall he serve, but in the seventh he shall go out free ; " 
(longer service could not be contracted for, but must he 
voluntary, Ex. 21 : 5 ;) or as a hired servant or sojourner 
till the jubilee, but never beyond. Lev. 25 : 10, 39-41. 
But a heathen could bind himself as an evedh for 
longer than six years ; and thus his service, unlike the 
Hebrew, could be " bought " as " an inheritance for your 
children after you," but, like the Hebrew voluntary " for 
ever " servants, they were bondmen for the longest time 
known by the law — till death or the jubilee. 

Is it objected that the terms " buy," " possession," 
" for ever," are used, and indicate chattclism ? Wc an- 
swer, All admit the Hebrew was not a chattel ; for his 
service expired at the seventh year, the death of himself 
or his master. " //(? shall serve hiin for ever;" but, 
if both lived on, this service, though voluntary, as has 
been shown, expired with all such claims at the jubilee. 
Since the same terms, and, as wc shall show directly, the 



IS SLAVERY SAKCTIOXED BY THE BIBLE ? 13 

jubilee, applied equally to both, if it does not prove the 
one a chattel, it does not the other ; therefore both are 
equally voluntary contractors. The service, and not the 
bodies, were bought ; and both were equally free at 
the jubilee. 

Two objects were accomplished by this law. 1st. To 
permit the Hebrews to obtain that assistance in tillinpf the 
land, which otherwise they would not have been allowed 
to do. 2d. To increase the numbers of the common- 
wealth, since the Hebrews, in obedience to the Abrahamic 
covenant. Gen. 17: 10-14; p]x. 12: 44-49, were bound 
to circumcise these indented servants " bought Math 
money," thus making them part of the household during 
their period of service, and also naturalized citizens of 
the state, members of the congregation, partakers of all 
the rites and privileges common to the mass of the people. 
Ex. 12 : 44-9. Num. 15 : 15-30, " One ordinance shall 
be both for you of the congregation, and also for the 
stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever 
in your generations ; as ye are, so shall the stranger be 
before the Lord." Lev. 19: 34, "The stranger that 
dwelleth among you shall be as one born among you, and 
thou shah love him as thyself.'" In accordance with the 
frequently-repeated injunction of this law of equality, 
they were invariably recognized as citizens, and alike with 
Hebrew servants, were amenable to, and received protec- 
tion from, the laws of the state. 

In further proof of this, and in direct opposition to 
chattelism, is the fact, that the laws regulating the rela- 
tion of master and servant are each and all enacted for 
the benefit and protection of the servant, and not one for 
that of the master. Again, when property is spoken of, 
oxen, sheep, &c., the term owner is always used, master 
never ; when servants and masters are spoken of, master 
is always used, owner never. Ex. 21: 29, "The 
ox shall be stoned, and his oivner also shall be put to 
death." Ex. 21 : 34, If an ox or ass fall into a pit left 
uncovered, " the owner of the pit shall make it good, and 
give money to the owner of them." But, Dcut. 25 : 15, 
" Thou shall not deliver to his master the servant which 
is escaped from his master unto thee." 

The inference from all this is plain. Xo such thing as 
2 



14 IS SLAVEKY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 

property in man is recognized in the Mosaic law ; but God, 
finding polygamy and the law of serfdom existing among 
the Israelites, did not see fit to abolish them at once, but 
so hampered and hedged them about by restrictive statutes 
as gradually and finally to abolish them altogether. 

5. Restrictive Lazes. 

But lest oppression should trample upon the rights of 
the laboring classes, and aim at their enslavement, — which 
actually happened afterward, and was one of the princi- 
pal items of God's indictment (Jer. 22 : 3 ; 34 : 8-22) 
against the Jews prior to their destruction by Nebuchad- 
nezzar, — tliree special enactments Avere made to prevent 
such iniquity, and break up any attempt at chattel slavery 
in the nation. 

First. The law against kidnaping. — Ex. 21 : 16, 
*' He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be 
found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." 
Thus the one great means of obtaining slaves is forbid- 
den. He who (no matter where) seizes a human being, 
(no matter whom,) and reduces him to involuntary servi- 
tude, shall die ; for he seeks to take away the rights and 
privileges of freedom, all that goes to make up life ; seeks 
to make property of man, to extinguish the man in the 
chattel. 

" But," it is said, " this only refers to stealing slaves." 
Mark the logic : a man could seize and enslave another 
with impunity ; but if, afterward, the father, brother, or 
friend of the enslaved should attempt to rescue him, he 
must die ! Glorious argument for slaveholders and slave- 
catchers ! It is also said this refers to Hebrews, not 
strangers. Let God answer. Lev. 24 : 22, " Ye shall 
have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for 
one of your own country ; for I am the Lord your God." 
This is his interpretation of the breadth of the law given 
in the preceding verse, " He that killeth a man, he sliall 
be put to death." The law, therefore, is unrestricted and 
universal ; Hebrew or heathen, he tliat killeth a 7nan and 
he that stealeth a man shall alike die ; thus putting slavery 
and murder on the same footing, as equally criminal. Now, 
if God sanctioned shivery, wliy did he make such an in- 
consistent law as tliis forbidding it ? 



IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 1 o 

Second. The law concei^ning fugitives . — Dcut. 23 : 1-5, 
16, "Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant 
which is escaped from his master unto thee ; he shall 
dwell with thee, even among you in that place which he 
shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh him best ; 
thou shalt not oppress him." 

There is no equivocation here ; " thou shalt not deliver 
unto his master." It is imperative ; they were to receive 
him among them as a citizen, and, if need be, protect him 
from his master; mark, not a "heathen" or " Hebrew," 
servant, but the " servant," heathen or Hebrew, whoever 
should fly from the ill treatment or injustice of a hard 
master. Compare for a moment the Hebrew and Amer- 
ican fugitive laws. The Hebrew says, " Thou shalt not 
deliver to his master the servant that is escaped." The 
American says, " Thou shalt deliver him up to his master, 
or be fined one thousand dollars, and suffer six months' 
imprisonment." The Hebrew says, " He shall dweU with. 
thee . . . thou shalt not oppress him." The American 
law says, " The commissioner who tries the case shall get 
five dollars if he fails, and ten if he succeeds in ' deliver- 
ing to his master ' the fugitive, on the simple affidavit of 
the former that he is his slave." 

^Yhat are the deductions from this law of Moses ? The 
return of stray property is expressly commanded in Deut. 
22 : 1-3 ; the return of servants is expressly forbidden 
here ; the servant could leave a hard master at any time, 
and the state could not compel him to return : it did not 
recognize the condition of forced, but only voluntary ser- 
vitude, and thus rendered the existence of chattclism 
impossible. 

The third great protective laiv was that of the Jubilee. — 
Lev. 25 : lO-oo, " And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, 
and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto 
all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you, 
and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye 
shall return every man to his family." . . . Here the ex- 
pression is emphatic, no reservations are made, no restric- 
tions allowed. As the sound of bsi'^' ini"^* Yoval, Yoval, 
sounded through the land, and was echoed back from hill 
and village, from hamlet and town, the cr}' was taken up, 
and borne along by the laboring thousands of Israel, many 
of whom had been toiling under conti-act for years, by the 



16 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 

unfortunate debtor, and those whom poverty had compelled 
to part with "the old house at home," all returned, all 
were free. " Liberty, liberty ! " 

It is vain to assume that the benefits of the Jubilee 
were restricted to a particular class. To what class ? 
Not the six years' servants ; they were freed in the sev- 
enth. Not to debtors ; there was no law compelling them 
to serve at all ; therefore they could only serve voluntarily 
to pay their debts. Not to thieves ; they could only be 
compelled to make restitution of the thing stolen, or its 
value ; that paid, they were free. The only other classes 
to whom the law could apply Avere " all the inhabitants of 
the land" who served the longest time, the Hebrew " for- 
ever " servants, and the heathen servants, thus preventing 
the possibility of the rise and growth of a servile class, 
the curse of any country. In this M-ay only can we ac- 
count for the fact that Jewish history never mentions the 
existence of a large servile class, or a servile insurrection 
in Israel, so common and disastrous an occurrence in the 
history of ancient slaveholding communities. 

Some object here, that the term " inhabitants" implies 
" all the Hebrews," and excludes the strangers, Canaan- 
ites, &c. ; but by admitting that " all the Hebrews " were 
freed at the Jubilee, they admit that those who, in Ex. 
21:6, are servants " for ever," are also freed, and thus to 
serve "forever" only implies till the Jubilee. If, then, 
"for ever" means only till the Jubilee in one case, it 
means no more in the other. And if we show that the 
strangers and Canaanitcs ice7^e considered " inhabitants 
of the land," then the Jubilee referred to Hebrew and 
stranger alike, and both were free. In Ex. 34: 12, 15, 
" Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with 
the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest ; " and 
Lev. 18: 25; Num. 33: 52-55, Moses calls the heathen 
"the inhabitants of the land;" and as he was likely to 
understand the meaning of the term pretty well, he eitlicr 
refers in the Jubilee law to Hebrews, Canaanitcs, and all, 
or he meant Canaanitcs and heathen alone, M'hich is still 
more decisive. Again, in 2 Sam. 11 : 2-27 ; 23 : 39, we 
find one of these strangers, Uriah the Hiltile, not only an 
" inhabitant" of Jerusalem, but one of David's best offi- 
cers, and his wife becoming queen of Israel and mother 
of Solomon ; and in 2 Sam. 24 : 18-25, another, Araunah 



IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 17 

the Jebusite is a householder, and more, is praise as 
acting like a king toward king David, who bought prop- 
erty of him whereon to build an altar ; and yet, forsooth, 
they Avere not inhabitants ! 

But, as if to prevent equivocation, Moses defines the 
phrase " all the inhabitants ; " " Ye shall retm*n every 
man to his possession, and ye shall return every man to 
his family." Not every Hebrew, but every man^ the 
same generic term as in the law against killing or stealing 
"a man;" it is unqualified and universal. Thus with 
one blow this noble law strikes down the two principal 
sources of social oppression — monopoly of land and mo- 
nopoly of labor. All who had by poverty been compelled 
to part with the old farm and homestead received it back ; 
all claims of service against any person, however mean 
and humble, were canceled ; and the land and its inhab- 
itants were again free as God had made them. 

These accumulated arguments, each separately weighty 
and forcible, but collectively insurmountable, we think 
prove conclusively that the form of servitude among the 
Israelites was not chattel slavery, and that there is no 
sanction or authority for it in the Mosaic laws and reg- 
ulations. 

Thus in Jewish history we see the Israelites groaning 
under Eg}'ptian bondage, and God's arm outstretched 
to rescue them when fugitives, and punish their pursu- 
ers — a warning to all such thereafter ; we see laws en- 
acted to prevent the existence of chattelism among them, 
by restricting the master's power, and securing the ser- 
vant's freedom at regular intervals, and the opposite doc- 
trine of equality among men asserted ; we see the Israel- 
ites disobeying these commands, and adopting, with the 
idolatry of their neighbors, their slavery also, and God's 
fiery wrath denounced on them for it by Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
and Ezekiel, and fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar in the de- 
struction and captivity of the state. 

NEW TESTAMENT. 
Teachings of Christ. 

Ages pass, the Jews are restored to their land, but the 
Roman eagle overshadows it and all the civilized world. 
Despotism is enthroned ; and the idea that the world and 
2* 



18 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE? 

its people arc the property of Rome and its citizens is 
questioned only in murmuring whispers. All the relations 
of Roman life partake of this idea of absolutism ; sla- 
very is every where, liberty nowhere. Then the glad 
tidings of Messiah's coming is announced to an expectant 
world. Whom will he side with — the crushed and de- 
spairing millions, or the aristocratic and haughty fcAV ? 
Will he adopt and develop the idea of equality found in 
Jewish law, or the principle now ascendant, — "Might 
makes right," — the Roman slave law ? Let him answer. 

Standing'in the synagogue at Nazareth, the home of his 
boyhood, amid his expectant friends and relations, he 
reads (Luke 4: 16-21) from Isaiah, "The spirit of the 
Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach 
the gospel to the poor ; he hath sent me to heal the broken- 
hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recov- 
ering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that 
are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 
And he closed the book and sat down, . . . and began to 
say to them. This day is this scripture fulfilled in your 
ears." There is his commission and the constitution of 
his kingdom. Can any thing be more explicit ? 

Christ hhnself comes with glad tidings for the poor, to 
destroy slavery and oppression, and establish liberty. Re- 
joice, ye poor, taught hitherto that ye were made only for 
the service of the rich ; there is glad tidings for you. 
Rejoice, captives and slaves, " bruised" with the lash and 
fetter ; God comes " to preach deliverance to the captives, 
liberty to them that are bruised, and the acceptable year 
(the Jubilee) of the Lord." 

How did he fulfill this commission and pledge ? No 
code of laws and dogmas, terse and dry, were issued by 
him for the government of his kingdom ; but the great 
principle was proclaimed of a common brotherhood as 
children of God our Father, and of love to him as such. In 
his sermon on the mount, the parables of the lost sheep 
and silver piece, the good Samaritan, the prodigal son, 
the Pliarisce and the publican ; in his private teachings to 
his disciples ; and, above all, by his daily example he 
tauglit and illustrated, as the leading characteristics of his 
kingdom, love to God, the brothcrliood of man, the rights 
of all, however poor, degraded, or despised. More, he 



IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE? 19 

makes this idea of brotherhood and equality even with 
himself, the great test in the judgment. Matt. 25 : 
40, 45 : " And the king shall answer, and say unto them, 
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto 
the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." 
What will those who now boast of their large churches, 
composed almost entirely of slaves. Christian ministers, 
and church members, bought, sold, lashed, and treated like 
cattle, answer the King in that great day ? 

But to return : the result of such teachings was soon 
evident. " The common people heard him gladly," hung 
on his steps and words by thousands, and hailed him as 
deliverer ; while Scribes and Pharisees, priests and rulers, 
denounced him as " a friend of publicans and sinners," 
only seeking popularity among the masses, to disturb the 
public peace, and revolutionize the government. ]Mark, 
it was not simply religious, but political interference and 
teaching they charged him with, and on this charge they 
finally compassed his death. 

In his private teachings to his disciples he strongly in- 
culcated this truth. Striving among themselves for the 
supremacy, he charges them. Matt. 20 : 26-28, and many 
other places, " It shall not be so among you; but whoso- 
ever will be chief among you, let him be your servant ; 
even as the Son of man came not to be ministered to, 
but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." 
The law thus explicitly laid down, and in John 13 en- 
forced by his example, is the very opposite of chattelism. 
In his church, none were to claim supremacy over others, 
much less enslave them ; none to despise labor and the 
laborer, much less condemn others to it while themselves 
lived in idleness. 

Thus Christ, so far from sanctioning chattelism or prop- 
erty in man in any shape or form, by precept and ex- 
ample taught the opposite, the dignity of labor and the 
laborer, the common brotherhood of man, and consequent 
equality, political and religious. Did his apostles indorse 
this doctrine, or, fearing the result, did they side with 
the all prevalent system of class legislation and slavery ? 

Teachings of the Apostles. 

The result of their teaching in Judea is given in Acts 
4: 32-35 — "And the multitude of them that believed 



20 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BTELE ? 

were of one heart and one soul ; neither said any of 
them that aught of the things he possessed icas his own ; 
but they had all things common. Neither was there any 
among them that lacked ; for as many as were possessors 
of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of 
the things that were sold and laid them down at the 
apostles' feet, and distribution was made to every man 
according as he had need." They not only believed in 
" liberty, equality, and fraternity," but practised its ex- 
treme — not only equality of rights, but equality of prop- 
erty, among the brotherhood. 

But this was comparatively easy in Judea, where the 
principle of equality was already partly recognized, and 
the existence of chattelism prevented by the action of the 
Mosaic code. The apostles only fairly came in conflict 
Avith the spirit of caste and slavery when, filled with love 
and the Spirit, they entered heathen countries, " preach- 
ing the glad tidings of the kingdom," and establishing 
every where the glorious brotherhood of humanity, whose 
primary law is, " A new commandment I give unto you, 
That ye love one another as I have loved you. By this 
shall men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love 
one to another." John 13 : 34-5. And Paul expounds it 
to the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12 : 13 — " For by one Spirit are 
we all baptized into one body, M'hether we be Jews or 
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all 
made to drink into one Spirit." Gal. 3 : 26-28 : " Ye are 
all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus ; for as 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put 
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is 
neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; 
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.'^ Again, Col. 3 : 11, 
" There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncir- 
cumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free ; but 
Christ is all and in all." 

Can language be more express and conclusive tlian 
this ? The distinctions here dissolved by the waters of 
baptism, and blended into " one in Christ Jesus," are not, 
as our southern brethren assert, simply religious, but 
NATIONAL, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL — slavcrv, and the 
spirit of caste and clan which upholds it, alike forbidden, 
and liberty, equality, and fraternity, social, political, and 
religious, proclaimed as the rule of Christ's kingdom. 



IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 21 

Principles like these came upon the world like the 
morning sunlight, scattering the mists of superstitious 
ignorance, melting the icy pride and selfishness of the 
mighty, permeating all classes and relations of society 
with their secret influence, and blending all into one 
harmonious brotherhood of love and peace. Apparently 
they were subject as others to the laws of the state, but 
in secret were bound by stronger ties, and governed by 
higher, nobler laws, than the Avorld outside dreamed of. 

Instead of the Roman law of marriage, regarding the 
wife as the husband's slave, he must love her as himself; 
more, as Christ loved the church. Instead of the tyranny 
on one side, and the retaliating disobedience on the other, 
of the Roman parental relation, it became the image of 
our heavenly Father's love, and our trusting obedience to 
him. The relation of slave, " pro nullo, pro quadrupedo, 
pro mortuo," (as a nobody, a quadi'uped, a dead man,) to 
his master, became the relation of brethren, the one to 
render true and faithful service, Eph. 6 : 5, the other 
never to threaten, Eph. 6 : 9, much less punish ; not to 
regard them as chattels, as under the Roman law, but to 
give them just and equal compensation for their service, 
Eph. 6:9; Col. 4: 1, "knowing that ye also have a 
Master in heaven," " neither is there respect of persons 
with him." The legal deed of manumission was unneces- 
sary ; for as, when master and slave land in England, they 
may remain connected as master and free servant, never 
as master and slave, so, on admission into the brother- 
hood of the church, the waters of baptism, as shown 
above, dissolved the relation of slavery, and substituted 
that of freemen and brethren. 

Again, believers were members of Christ's body. He 
dwelt in them ; and therefore every indignity and injury 
done to them was done to him in their person. To en- 
slave, buy, and sell them was to enslave, buy, and sell 
Christ himself. " Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the 
least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." 
"Who, then, would dare hold a brother Christian as a slave ? 
What ! make merchandise of the person of Christ r Never ! 
the cry of Judas would ring around them as they were 
driven ignominiously from the church. 

"Why," it is objected, "did not the apostles preach 



■22 IS SJ.ATERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 

immediate emancipation, instead of indorsing slavery by- 
defining its duties — ' Servants, obey your masters,' &c. ? 
and Paul even sent back a slave." 1. The primary 
object of the apostles was not simply " to preach liberty 
to the captives ; " this was but a branch of the tree 
planted " for the healing of the nations." Their object 
was to sow the principles of faith, love, justice, and 
equality, well knowing that, when these took root and 
flourished, among the first fruit would be " liberty to all 
the inhabitants of the land." 2. Had this been their 
great object, they took the best and speediest plan for 
its accomplishment. Attacking the system directly, the 
appearance of the Christian missionary would have been 
the signal for servile war and untold bloodshed, the slave 
against the master, the poor against the rich ; and the 
heathen rulers, eager for a pretext to crush them, would 
have denounced them as lighting the torch of rebellion 
and war ; and the further spread of the gospel would have 
been drowned in the blood of its founders. But they 
took the very course which God adopted among the 
Israelites in regard to servitude, not directly prohibiting it, 
but inculcating principles of social equality and progress, 
restricting the master's power, and protecting the servant's 
rights, till, master and slave blended in one, the name of 
slave was lost in that of Christian. 3. The relation and 
duties of master and servant are defined by the apostles ex- 
actly as they might be to-day in England or the free states 
— as those of men, never as owner and property ; on the 
contrary, all ownership of man by other than God is 
expressly denied. 1 Cor. 6: 19, 20, "What! know ye 
not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost in 
you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your oicn ) 
For ye are bought with a price ; therefore glorify God in 
your body and your spirit, which are GocVs." There 
the ownership is clearly asserted ; how can man claim it ? 
" Render to Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and to 
God the things that are God's,'' lest you be found robbing 
God himself. Again, 1 Cor. 7 : 21, 23, " Art thou called, 
being a servant ? care not for it ; but, if thou mayst be 
made free, (f!)j3faa«» yevsadut,^ canst become free,) use it 
rather." What can be more explicit than this ? First, 
ownership of man is denied even to himself, much more 
to another. Next, the exhortation to slaves is, if they can 



IS SLAYERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 23 

not get free from this great ■s\Tong, to bear it as such, but, 
if they can, " use it rather ; " and the reason given is 
followed by a rule of action to be adopted wherever 
possible. Verse 23, " Ye are bought with a price ; be 

NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN." If this be not CXprCSS 

prohibition of chattelism, and command to slaves to free 
themselves from it, then the language is totally contra- 
dictory and unintelligible. 

Contrast these laws of Paul with the laws of most of 
the southern states, forbidding even the master to free 
his slaves, while states and Congress unite in hounding 
back to whip and task the poor slave who dares obey 
that command ; nay, offer large rewards for men, even 
Christian ministers, when attempting to obey it. " But 
Paul sent back Onesimus to his master, and therefore 
sanctioned the sending back of fugitives." We answer, 
there was no sending back at all. Paul, a prisoner, could 
not send him back : a Jew, he was forbidden by his 
religion to do so. Deut. 23: 15. It was simply a rec- 
ommendatory letter sent with Onesimus, returning vol- 
untarily to Colosse and his master. Let us look at the 
letter. Verse 8 begins, " Wherefore, though I might be 
much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is conven- 
ient, yet, for love's sake, I rather beseech thee. I beseech 
thee for my son Onesimus, . . . icMch in time past icas to 
thee unprofitahie, but now profitable to thee and to me ; 
whom I have sent again, . . . not now as a servant, but 
above a servant, a brother beloved," &c. Here Onesimus 
is described as having been, while heathen, an " unprofit- 
able " trouble to his master, and had cither run away or 
been sent away by him. Converted at Rome, Paul heard 
his story, and in his letter, instead of thinking he is doing 
Philemon a favor, has to earnestly " beseech," almost 
command, his reception as a favor to himself. Not one 
word of propcrtij or i^ight in him, save the right of love 
as one of the brotherhood. " Xot now as a servant, 
but above a sere ant, a brother beloved, especially to ?ne, 
but how much more to thee ! " Onesimus had left the 
" slave " in his heathenism ; in Christ he became the 
" brother " of Philemon and Paul. Instead of sanction- 
ing chattelism, it positively denies it by aflii'ming volun- 
tary service, the equality of men as brethren, to be loved 
as Christ himself. 



24 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE f 

Thus Christ and his apostles, so far from upholding 
chattelism in their teachings, denounced the ownership of 
man by any but God, and inculcated its opposite — love, 
liberty, equality, and fraternity — by precept and example. 
And subsequent history showed the result. 

Christ said of the teachings of the Pharisees, "• By their 
fruits ye shall know them." Apply this test to the teach- 
ings of the apostles and the primitive churches in regard to 
slavery. When they went forth, " darkness covered the 
earth, and gross darkness the people ; " slavery sat en- 
throned in might over Europe ; and the cries of tlie 
oppressed millions had only had a hearing on the battle 
or before the throne of God. 

When the Reformation came slavery had disappeared in 
Europe ; and the voice of the people was heard asserting 
their rights, feebly, indeed, at first, but ever since grow- 
ing stronger and stronger " as the voice of many waters." 
What has caused this change ? 

Historians, Protestant and Catholic, ascribe it to the 
influence of the church, not by direct emancipatory de- 
crees, but, following the example of God through ISIoscs, 
by gi-adually restricting the master's power, and protecting 
the slave ; by girdling the poison tree till it withered and 
fell, though, sad to say, the ruins still disfigure too much 
field, of the fair fields of Europe and America. 

No fact is more patent in history than the truth ex- 
pressed by Paul to the Corinthians: "Where the Spirit 
of the Lord is, there is libekty." The whole tendency 
of tlie Bible and true Christianity, direct and indirect, is 
to the liberty and advancement, never the slavery and 
degradation, of man ; and those who have attempted to 
shield the monster curse of our country and age with the 
garb of the gospel may find too late, when that awful 
voice shall ring in their ears, " Inasmuch as ye have done 
it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have 
done it unto me," that Christ came not only " to preach 
deliverance to the captives " and " to set at liberty them 
that are bruised," but also " the day of vengeance of our 
God." 

AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 

28 CoRNHiLLj^ Boston. 



jl !»>ml~8>v\ Jl 



EXTRACT FROM MR. O'CONORS ARGUMENT 

Before the New York Court of Appeals, on the ^' Lemmon 
Slave Case" 

" I SUBMIT most respectfully that the only desire I have mani- 
fested here or elsewhere, in reference to the question, has been 
to draw the mind of the court and the intelligent mind of the 
American people, to the true question which underlies the whole 
conflict, and that is the question to which my friend (W. W. 
Evarts, Esq.) has addressed the best, and, in my judgment, the 
finest part of his very able argument. * * * ^jy ft-iend de- 
nounces the institution of slavery as a monstrous injustice, as a 
sin, as a violation of the law of God and of the law of man, 
of natural law or natural justice; and in his argument in 
another place, he called your attention to the enormity of the 
result claimed in this case, that these eight persons — and not 
only they, but then- posterity to the remotest time — were, by 
your Honors' judgment, to be consigned to this shocking con- 
dition of abject bondage and slavery. Why, how very small 
and minute was that presentation of the subject! My friend 
must certainly have used the microscope or reversed the tele- 
scope, when, in seeking to present this question in a striking 
manner to your Honors" minds, he called your attention to 
these feio persons and their posterity. Why, if your Honors 
please, our territory embraces at the least estimate three mil- 
lions of these human beings, who, by our laws and institu- 
tions, as now existing is these states, * * * ^re not 
only consigned to hopeless bondage throughout their whole 
Hves, but to a like condition is their posterity consigned 
to the remotest times. * * * It is a question of the 
mightiest magnitude. But the reason why I call your Honors' 
attention to its magnitude is this : that you may contemplate it 
in the connection in which my learned friend has presented it ; 
that it is a SIN — a violation of natural justice and the law of 
God ; that it is a monstrous scheme of iniquity for defrauding 
the laborer of his wages — one of those sins that crieth aloud to 



heaven for vengeance ; that it is a course of unbridled rapine, m = 
fraud, and pkmder, by which three miUions and their posterity (^^ 
are to be oppressed throughout all time. Now, is it a sin ? Is ^ ^ 
this an outrage against divine law and natural justice ? If it he ^^ 
such an outrage, then I say it is a sin of the greatest magnitude, gf j 
of the most enormous and flagitious character that was ever M 
presented to the human mind. The man who does not shrink ^ 
from it with horror is utterly unworthy the name of a man. It ^ 
is no trivial offence, that may be tolerated with limitations and 
qualifications ; that we can excuse ourselves for supporting 
because we have made some kind of a bargain to support it. 
The tongue of no human being is capable of depicting its 
enormity ; it is not in the power of the human heart to form 
a just conception of its wickedness and cruelty. And what, I 
ask, is the rational and necessary consequence, if we regard it 
to be thus sinful, thus unjust, thus outrageous ? " 



Dr. Hopkins, of Newport, being much engaged in urging the 
sinfulness of slavery, called one day at the house of Dr. Bellamy 
in Bcthlem, Connecticut, and w^hile there pressed upon him the 
duty of liberating his only slave. Dr. B., who was an acute 
and ingenious reasoner, defended slaveholding by a variety of 
arguments, to which Dr. H. as ably repHed. At length Dr. 
Hopkins proposed to Dr. Bellamy practical obedience to the 
golden rule. " Will you give your slave his freedom if he 
desires it ? " Dr. B. replied that the slave was faithful, judi- 
cious, trusted with every thing, and would not accept freedom 
if offered. " Will you free him if lie desires it ? " repeated 
Dr. H. *' Yes," answered Dr. Bellamy, " I will." '' Call him 
then." The man appeared. " Have you a good, khul master ? " 
asked Dr. Hopkins. " Oh ! yes, very, very good." " And are you 
happy ? " " Yes, master, very happy." " Would you be more 
happy if you were free ? " His face brightened. " Oh ! yes, 
master, a great deal more happy." " From this moment,'' said 
Dr. Bellamy, "yow are free." 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 932 616 3 



